fault_injection_async25_paper/fault_injection_async25.tex

\documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
\IEEEoverridecommandlockouts
% The preceding line is only needed to identify funding in the first footnote. If that is unneeded, please comment it out.
\usepackage{biblatex}
\addbibresource{fault_injection_async25.bib}
%\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{orcidlink}
\def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
    T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}
\begin{document}

\title{Conference Paper Title\\
\thanks{Identify applicable funding agency here. If none, delete this.}
}

\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Fabian Posch\, \orcidlink{0009-0009-9272-1633}}
\IEEEauthorblockA{Institute for Computer Engineering\\
TU Wien\\
Vienna, Austria \\
fabian.posch@student.tuwien.ac.at}
\and
\IEEEauthorblockN{Florian Huemer\, \orcidlink{0000-0002-2776-7768}}
\IEEEauthorblockA{Institute for Computer Engineering\\
TU Wien\\
Vienna, Austria \\
fhuemer@ecs.tuwien.ac.at}
\and
\IEEEauthorblockN{Andreas Steininger\, \orcidlink{0000-0002-3847-1647}}
\IEEEauthorblockA{Institute for Computer Engineering\\
TU Wien\\
Vienna, Austria \\
steininger@ecs.tuwien.ac.at}
\and
\IEEEauthorblockN{Rajit Manohar}
\IEEEauthorblockA{Computer Systems Lab\\
Yale University\\
New Haven, CT 06520, USA\\
rajit.manohar@yale.edu}
}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
ACT is a very versatile and powerful tool for design, simulation and manufacturing of asynchronous circuits. When fault tolerance is a priority, being able to simulate the possible effects as part of the design process can be a huge boon.\\
In this paper we present an augmentation of ACT which allows flexible and comprehensive (transient) fault injection. Key features of this tool are native integration into the existing language framework, distributed computation to speed up wait times, as well as an improved fault distribution model compared to previous attempts. We describe the fault model we targeted, the implementation, issues which had to be overcome, as well as an application example to demonstrate the use and capabilities of the tool.
\end{abstract}

\begin{IEEEkeywords}
NEEDS TO BE CHANGED
\end{IEEEkeywords}

\section{Introduction}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item what is the problem to begin with
    \item why should one care
    \item what is temporal masking
    \item why does async not have this luxury
\end{itemize}

\section{Related Work}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item ACT toolchain in a nutshell
    \item previous works by TU Wien
    \item what fault model did they use
\end{itemize}

\section{Fault Model}

\subsection{On fault nomenclature}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item different types of faults that can occur
    \item upset vs transient
    \item single event delay (if we want to throw that in)
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Per-Node Fault Space}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item fault is injected as output from one node diverges from specification
    \item show why this makes sense: only certain input combinations would activate a gate in a way where it could create erroneous output; everything else is logically masked $\rightarrow$ simulation doesn't make sense anyway
    \item which fault scenarios can and cannot be simulated
    \item show some graphs for this
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Types of failure behavior}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item types of failures observed at the output
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Discussion of Pipeline Load Factor}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item when does PLF make sense to begin with
    \item when does it not make sense
    \item why have we not really included it in this analysis
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Injection Strategy}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item fault distribution: skewed by node fanout instead of average injection density
\end{itemize}

\section{Experiment Setup}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item what was the target circuit
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Tooling}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item workflow: setup of harness, similarity to UVM, testbench design intended as design once, use for entire verification workflow
    \item why is this better than before? Performance improvements, not everything is simulated at gate level anymore, actsim is a mixed level simulator; DUT is simulated at gate level, while harness is simulated at higher level of abstraction
    \item changes to actsim? Addition of value overriding, addition of delay overriding; Addition of bounded stochastic delay?
    \item Using dflowmap means we can easily target different families of asynchronous circuits and even synchronous circuits and compare
    \item results database and post-processing
\end{itemize}

\section{Results}

Points to talk about

\begin{itemize}
    \item how many failures were we able to find with our new tool vs with the old tool
    \item how efficient (failures found / injection) is this setup compared to previous attempts
    \item how do certain families of async and sync compare
\end{itemize}

\section{Conclusion}


\printbibliography

\end{document}